Meet the Press Full Episode — Sept. 7

This Sunday, trade tensions. With President Trump's tariffs headed to the Supreme Court and new jobs data fueling doubts, what's next for the U.S. economy? If you took away tariffs, we could end up being a third world country. I'll talk exclusively to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessing. Plus, file fight. As Congress returns, pressure builds for the Trump administration to release the Epstein files. This is a Democrat hoax that never ends. Just pass the vote. Listen to us. This is not a hoax. I'll talk to Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. And public health alert. After ousting the CDC director, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faces growing scrutiny over his vaccine policies and sweeping public health promises. I would say, effectively, we're denying people vaccines. How can you be that ignorant? I support vaccines. I'm a doctor. Vaccines work. You're a charlatan. That's what you are. I'll speak with Democratic Governor Wes Moore of Maryland. Plus, Steve Kornacki reveals the results of our latest poll. Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, Jonathan Martin of Politico, former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and Stephen Haynes, editor of The Dispatch. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press. From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Good Sunday morning. There are growing warning signs for President Trump's economy. More than seven months into his second administration, the job market continues to slow down. Only 22,000 jobs were added in August, well below expectations. And the numbers for June were revised, showing 13,000 jobs were lost. The first decline in the job market since the COVID pandemic in 2020. This was the first jobs report since President Trump fired the official in charge of the jobs numbers after a weaker-than-expected report last month. Economist Mark Zandi warning the U.S. economy has entered a jobs recession. The president saying Americans will need to wait another two years to see the full impact of his policy on the economy. Our big year won't be really next year. I think it'll be the year after because when these plants start opening up, it takes a period of time to build them. We're going to have tremendous job growth. This week, the White House asked the Supreme Court to move quickly to rule on the president's power to impose his global tariffs after a federal appeals court ruled that he had exceeded his authority. The president issuing a dire warning if the court doesn't rule in his favor. We have a very, very big case in the Supreme Court. I can only say this. Our country has a chance to be unbelievably rich again, but it can also be unbelievably poor again. If we don't win that case, our country is going to suffer so greatly. And joining me now exclusively is Treasury Secretary Scott Besant. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to Meet the Press. Good morning. Thank you so much for being here. I do want to start right there on the jobs numbers. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told me in an interview the numbers look, quote, weak. And you just heard me say there that Moody's chief economist called this a jobs recession. I want to give you the opportunity to respond to Mark Zandi. Do you see this as a jobs recession? Well, Kristen, when I was here with you in April, there was a panic because the stock market had gone down. And you remained pretty calm. But a lot of other mainstream media people were in a complete lather over the stock market performance. President Trump held the views on tariffs. He was proven right. We had the quickest stock market recovery in history. We're at new highs in August. And we look, we're not going to do economic policy off of one number. We believe that good policies are in place that are going to create good, high-paying jobs for the American people. Two, let's look at the efficacy of this number. August is the noisiest month of the year. Typically, the highest revisions come in August. That's why it's important that we have good data. Austin Goolsbee, who's head of the Chicago Fed and probably the most partisan person at the Federal Reserve in leadership, came out and said, I don't know if these numbers were that weak. I don't know if I'm going to vote for a cut in September because it may have something to do with the immigration deportation. So this is why we need good data. Three, if in fact these numbers are true, it shows that President Trump was right about the Federal Reserve. They are too late. And because of the bad numbers, they likely would have been cutting in June. And if we believe the numbers. And four, I can tell you, the one thing this administration is not going to do, and we are not going to let the Democrat media surrogates do, is during President Biden, President Harris's campaign, they told the American people, it's a vibe session. You don't understand how good you have it. President Trump was elected for change, and we are going to push through with the economic policies that are going to set the economy right. I believe by the fourth quarter, we're going to see a substantial acceleration. Okay. Well, we'll have you back, definitely to check back in with you then. But let me drill down a little bit more on these numbers, Mr. Secretary. The president said that these tariffs are going to spark a manufacturing renaissance, he called it. But since he announced them in April, the U.S. has actually lost 42,000 manufacturing jobs. Are these numbers proof that the tariffs are failing to produce the manufacturing jobs that President Trump promised? Again, Chris, it's been a couple of months. And with the manufacturing sector, as you know, we can't snap our fingers and have factories built. So what we're seeing is a record amount of investment intentions. We've seen a capex boom in the first half of the year. And I think that was actually held back. The one big beautiful bill, which has full expensing for factories and equipment, was passed on July 4th. Many companies were holding back then. So we are going to see construction jobs and we're going to see manufacturing jobs. But Mr. Secretary, the economy did add nearly half a million manufacturing jobs under former President Biden. In this case, since April, again, you're actually losing manufacturing jobs. Is that problematic for your policy? Well, a couple of things, Chris. We're going to get the revisions for last year, next week. And there may be as big as an 800,000 job downward revision. Again, this would be the second downward revision. So I'm not sure what these people who collect the data have been doing. It's good. We need good data. Secondly, what we are seeing is the jobs that are being created are going to either native born or legal Americans. The most of the jobs created under the Biden administration, they went to illegal aliens. Well, and I think that there would be a lot of debate over the fact that they went to illegal aliens. But let's keep moving. No, no, no, no. No, that's the fact. Okay, let's keep moving though, because I want to talk about what U.S. companies are saying right now, Mr. Secretary. The New York Times wrote this about John Deere, the impact that tariffs are having on that company. Quote, last month, John Deere said net income in its most recent quarter was down 29% from a year earlier. Higher tariffs have cost the company $300 million so far, with nearly another $300 million expected by the end of the year. This summer, the company laid off 238 employees across factories in Illinois and Iowa. What do you say to companies like John Deere who say these tariffs are hurting them? Well, first of all, Kristen, if you're quoting the New York Times, that's not a fair observer. And two, that- Well, but these are statistics. Well, that's one- This is about John Deere, not about the New York Times. That's one company that they have cherry-picked. At Treasury, we have about two management teams come through a day, and overwhelmingly, we are hearing from companies, they plan to increase CapEx, they plan to increase employment. We are seeing a record amount, what's going to be a record amount of foreign direct investment. And for every John Deere, we have companies who are telling us the tariffs have helped our business, we're increasing CapEx, and we're going to increase employment. But Mr. Secretary, it's not just John Deere. We've heard from a lot of different companies around the country. Nike says the tariffs will cost the company around $1 billion this year. Black & Decker says $800 million. The big three automakers all say they've had to pay more than $2 billion in tariffs. The list goes on and on. Bottom line, do you acknowledge that these tariffs amount to a tax on the American people? Well, first of all, let's back up because what we've seen, for instance, the Japanese automakers have said they're eating the tariff. But these companies say they're eating the tariff. These American companies. They're eating the tariff. And again, there are numerous companies who are doing the opposite. You're taking these from earnings calls, and on earnings calls, they have to give the draconian scenario. There aren't companies coming out and saying, oh, because of the tariffs, we're doing this. But I can tell you, whether it's Micron or Apple, they are upping their investments in the United States. And Kristen, if things are so bad, why was the GDP 3.3%? Why is the stock market at a new high? Because with President Trump, we care both about big companies and small companies. And you're quoting big companies, but the big company index, the S&P, is at a new high. Hasbro says they're going to have to increase their prices. Goldman Sachs says 86% of the tariff revenue collected so far has been paid by American businesses and consumers. So just bottom line, Mr. Secretary, do you acknowledge that these tariffs are a tax on American consumers? No, I don't. Even though you have companies saying they are going to have to increase prices, and given the fact that 86% of these tariffs so far have been paid by Americans. You're quoting Goldman Sachs, so. Yes, Goldman Sachs, correct, which I said. I made a good career trading against Goldman Sachs. Okay, all right. I do want to talk to you about the battle playing out in the courts. I know you've been deeply involved in this. The so-called reciprocal tariffs suffered a big setback when an appeals court ruled they were illegal because tariffs are a tax and only Congress can impose taxes unless it explicitly gives that power to the president. You're appealing the Supreme Court now. What is your plan if President Trump's tariffs are struck down by the high court? Well, there's a lot to unpack there, Kristen. Let's do it in a couple of segments. One, the president is using something called the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Thus far, we have two kinds of tariffs. There's the fentanyl tariffs and the reciprocal tariffs. I'm not sure on what planet this fentanyl crisis with 100, 200,000 Americans being killed every year, this poison coming across the border, why can the president not use tariffs to stop that? Two, on the reciprocal tariffs, we have reached a tipping point in terms of our trade balance. That is what has created the emergency situation and we are trying to bring the trade into balance. But Mr. Secretary, I hear you talking about fentanyl, but these tariffs apply to practically every single country around the globe. But let me ask you, if the Supreme Court rules against you on these tariffs, is the administration prepared to offer rebates? Kristen, I am confident that we will win at the Supreme Court, but there are numerous other avenues that we can take. They diminish President Trump's negotiating position, but there are numerous in terms of, and remember, this isn't about the dollars. This is about balance. The dollars are an after amount. Would you offer rebates though? Are you prepared to offer rebates? So we would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury. You're prepared to give those refunds? Well, I mean, there's no be prepared. If the court says it, we'd have to do it. But let's look back. Again, when I was here in April, the sky was falling with the tariffs that everyone is leaving the US. Since then, the US bond market has been the best performing bond market in the developed world. And from Barclays Bank to Goldman Sachs to others are saying it is the tariff income and the fiscal improvement that we are seeing. And that's what President Trump is talking about. We're almost out of time, and I do have a couple more questions to get to. Fed Chair Jerome Powell's term ends in May. On Friday, you started interviewing potential successors. Do you want a Fed Chair who will factor in the president's input when it comes to setting interest rates? Is that what you're looking for? We want someone who has an open mind and will factor in different policies. Because you go back and you look, Alan Greenspan in the 90s realized that we were in the midst of a productivity boom with the internet, with office equipment being used. I think that we are in the midst of an AI productivity boom. So we want someone with an open mind. We have seen that the Fed, as I wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Friday and in a longer article in the International Economy, has consistently overstated or overestimated GDP when Democrats are in office, consistently underestimated GDP when Republicans are in office. So we need to get rid of this orthodoxy that has led them to so many mistakes. You talk about what you wrote in the Wall Street Journal. You say the Fed's independence comes from public trust, but it's worth pointing out the president has consistently criticized Fed Chair Jerome Powell, has leaned on him to lower interest rates. He's trying to get rid of Fed Governor Lisa Cook. Bottom line, Mr. Secretary, will the Fed Chair set interest rates or will President Trump? The Fed Chair doesn't set interest rates. The FOMC sets interest rates. So it is a board. Should President Trump have a say? And President Trump is gonna make his views known just like President Biden did. President Biden in the State of the Union, his last State of the Union said he thought there was gonna be an interest rate cut. Senator Warren called for a 75 basis interest rate, point interest rate cut this time this year. All right, last question. Russia, overnight, Russia hit key in the largest aerial attack on the country since the war began, Mr. Secretary. It caused NATO, in fact, to scramble jets. You have a very high stakes meeting on Monday with key economic officials from European countries. Is the administration prepared to impose sanctions against Russia now? President Trump, Vice President Vance had a very productive call with EU President Ursula von der Leyen on Friday. She followed up with a call with me. And we are talking about what can the two EU and the US do together. And we are prepared. We are prepared to increase pressure on Russia, but we need our European partners to follow us because if the US and the EU do this together, we are in a race now between how long can the Ukrainian military hold up versus how long can the Russian economy hold up. And if the US and the EU can come in to more sanctions, secondary tariffs on the countries that buy Russian oil, the Russian economy will be in full collapse and that will bring President Putin to the table. Okay, all right. Mr. Secretary, there was some big news on Russia. We really appreciate your stopping by. Thank you so much. Great to have you as always. When we come back, Democratic Governor Wes Moore of Maryland joins me next. Welcome back and joining me now is Democratic Governor Wes Moore of Maryland. Governor Moore, welcome back to Meet the Press. Great to be with you. It is great to have you. Thanks so much for being here. You just heard my conversation with Treasury Secretary Scott Besson. He says the economy is stronger than this latest jobs report would suggest. And he echoed the president that Americans need to give this tariff policy time to work. What say you? Is that a fair argument? No, because I think people are seeing right now, right now, the impacts of these trade wars and these random tariff policies. You know, he's here talking about the S&P, but on the streets, in the communities and neighborhoods, we're hearing about jobs and prices. We're watching unemployment go up. We're watching prices on everything from energy to the clothes people are wearing to the food people are eating. Those prices continue to skyrocket. And we are not seeing any type of, any type of platform as to something we should believe in. And we're not just hearing it from everyday consumers and people in our neighborhoods. We're hearing it from our businesses because the businesses, when they're giving their reports, the Black and Decker's, the McCormick's, the Under Armour's, Maryland businesses, that they have to tell the truth. And the truth is, is that these tariff policies are continuing to increase a lack of predictability. And it's continuing to make prices go up on the American consumer. Well, I want to ask you about another big issue that you are facing in your state, President Trump's threat to send in federal troops to more cities. You and Baltimore Mayor Brendan Scott just announced that you're actually stepping up law enforcement in Baltimore. Governor, your Baltimore, I should say, still has the nation's fourth highest murder rate in the country. Why not accept the president's offer to send in National Guard troops? Well, no, we absolutely accept the offer for federal supports. The president's proposed budget actually cut supports for the FBI and ATF bureaus, which are things we actually could use. That the president, when you're looking at the big, beautiful bill, it actually cut $30 million of funding for violence prevention programs that are happening in the city of Baltimore and across the state of Maryland. And when I first came on board, I was very clear that public safety was going to be our number one priority. And we have made historic investments in local law enforcement. Historic investments in technologies and making sure that someone commits a violent crime with a handgun, we want them in handcuffs in 24 hours. So the work is happening. And actually, if you're looking at the same time period of this D.C. occupation, this federal surge, if you look at assaults with a deadly weapon, they've actually increased in D.C. by 8%. In Baltimore, have decreased by 10%. And on every other major indicator, from homicides to carjackings, you say that Baltimore has actually had the same type of drop as Washington, D.C. has had during this period. And we didn't mobilize the National Guard for it. Well, it seems like the president is not backing down on this policy. In fact, I want to show you a post. This was posted yesterday. President Trump shared this on his social media account. It's directed at Chicago, and it reads, quote, I love the smell of deportations in the morning. And Chicago about to find out why it's called the Department of War. Illinois Governor Pritzker called this a threat. Would you go so far as to call this a threat? I call it a threat. I call it embarrassing. I would call it performative. And I do want to be clear about some of the stats. When people talk about how, you know, we've watched a decrease because of the National Guard. Let's be clear about some of the stats, that the National Guard responsible during this occupation for 744 cubic yards of mulch spread, 886 bags of trash collected, 270 feet of fence painted. You know what we don't have stats on? How many illegal guns has the National Guard seized? How many drug busts has the National Guard done? And yet crime is down in D.C. Oh, as it is in Baltimore. And in fact, if you're looking at the crime numbers in Baltimore, they're down around the same percentage from D.C. during the surge. And we did not have to ask these citizen soldiers to give up their lives and ask the American people to pay well over a million dollars a day so we could have fences painted. I want to turn to another big issue this week, the fireworks on Capitol Hill. Both Democrats and Republicans thrilled the HHS secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for his vaccine skepticism, for the fact that he's actually limiting access to vaccines. As you know, Florida is working to abolish vaccine mandates for school-aged children. A lot of people across the country, no matter what their political beliefs right now, Governor, are just confused. As the governor of Maryland, what are you planning to do to ensure the public's health in your state? Well, we just signed policy, in fact, last week, showing and indicating that Maryland is going to apply to the vaccine policies that we had on December 31st of last year. That we are not going to give into conspiracy theorists and we're not going to give into, you know, lack of data-driven policies that are somehow influencing whether people are going to be safe and whether they get access to vaccines. That we have ample supply of vaccines. We are going to make sure that our vaccine availability is there and real for the people of the state of Maryland and they should know that they should be safe on that. And I do feel for the people in these other states who are having to go through this chaos and having conspiracy theorists who are continuing to drive your vaccine policy and my message to them would be to come to Maryland. Okay, well, I want to talk about another big issue for Democrats heading into the midterm. The battle over redistricting. Maryland is among the Democratic states, actually, eyeing new congressional maps to offset the moves we saw in Texas where they added five additional GOP seats. In 2022, Maryland was praised for adopting a fairer map. And yet your predecessor, Larry Hogan, wrote this recently, quote, Maryland led by example. We turned the page. Now some would rather reopen old wounds and copy the worst behavior from other states. Let me ask you, Governor, will you rule out redrawing the map in Maryland? No, in Maryland, all options are on the table. And I do believe that gerrymandering is actually a true stain on a larger Democratic side. I do believe that. And I do believe that when we're looking at how we should have our elections, that we should not have elections where you have the policymakers who are selecting their voters, but voters who are selecting the policymakers. What I also know is this, less than 10% of all congressional districts right now are competitive. That if you're looking at not just races in Maryland, but races around the country, then most of these races are won by 20 and 30 and 40 points. And so if we are going to have, Donald Trump is going to start picking and choosing which states that should have a chance to reevaluate how they're thinking about that, then the state of Maryland should also should not sit on their hands now. But what about this argument by Governor Hogan, who's very clear, he says it would be copying the worst behavior from other states. Do you worry about the hypocrisy that it sends? No, because I think if you're looking at the maps as they're laid out right now, and you're looking at the lack of competitiveness that exists all throughout, again, not even just in many cases, Maryland jurisdictions, but all around the country, there is a real challenge when it comes to ensuring that you can have fair maps. And so I do think it is important that if Maryland is going to, if other states are going to look about, say, midterm, mid-cycle, and mid-decade evaluations on the maps, then Maryland should also be able to say, well, then we can have a chance to look at them as well. All right, Governor, finally, before I let you go, you have not announced you're running for reelection. If you do, do you commit to serve a full term? Yes, I'll be serving a full term. I'm excited about reelection. I'm excited about what I'm going to be able to do for the people of Maryland. Do you rule out a run for president, Governor? Yeah, I'm not running for president. You rule it out? Yes, I'm not running for president. You completely rule it out? I'm so excited about what we're doing, that we've gone from 43rd in the country in unemployment to now one of the lowest unemployment rates. We've had amongst the fastest drops in violent crime anywhere in the United States of America. Our population is growing. Maryland is moving. And so I'm really excited about going back in front of the people of my state and asking for another term. All right. Well, if and when you're now to reelection, please come back and join us. Governor Westmore, thank you so much. Great to see you as always. When we come back, Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey joins me next. Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey. Senator Booker, welcome back to Meet the Press. It's really good to be back. Thank you. It is great to have you here. Thank you so much for joining us. I want to start off on some big news this week. President Trump launched a strike against a Venezuelan boat. He alleges was carrying a large amount of drugs. Here's the video he posted. Overnight, the vice president dismissed critics who called this strike a, quote, war crime. Senator Rand Paul responded by saying, quote, what a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial. Senator, do you think that the president has the authority to unilaterally strike a boat carrying alleged drug smugglers? No, he doesn't. It is a massive expansion of presidential authority against the rules that abide by the use of military force. And it's another example of Donald Trump breaking laws within the United States, giving no justification for his action. All that we've heard so far is that he might be relying on the 9-11 authorization for the use of military force. And that is outrageous. And folks need to understand, as the president continues to expand his authority in a way that is very authoritarian, that we all should be concerned. The rule of law matters. And the form of government we have mandates a president work within those bounds and does not just take these kind of actions unilaterally. I want to talk about one of the big developments on Capitol Hill this week, that explosive hearing with HHS Secretary Kennedy, grilled by Democrats and Republicans for his vaccine policies, his vaccine skepticism. As you know, a number of Democrats have called for him to resign. Do you, Senator, think that Secretary Kennedy should resign? Well, let's be clear about what's happening to America's health. Donald Trump and his agents right now are making health care unaccessible to millions of more Americans. They're attacking the science that guides our decisions about health care policy. They are making it more difficult to access vaccines that in many cases are life saving. He promised to make America healthy and we're seeing that his policies are actually creating more health care crises in our country than not. Now, I'm one of these big believers that when I see Justice Department officials and State Department officials and many other people resigning because the president of the United States is doing things that are immoral and dangerous. I believe, frankly, that all of his cabinet should be taking a moral position, especially those that are parts of agencies like Health and Human Services or the Justice Department. When you have a president that is acting in the way that he should, that all of them should be stepping down, especially those that are part of an agency that should be protecting Americans' health. So you're saying, yes, he should step down? Yes. OK, in the past, though, you have expressed a willingness to work with Secretary Kennedy, particularly on issues related to food nutrition. I want to play something that you said back in April. Take a listen. I love the ambition. I love the things that he's saying. And by the way, they're doing some things in changing dietary standards and the like. And I'm going to continue where I can find common ground with RFK. I'm going to do everything I can to support and to lead Block and to join him in the things that are right. But but far be it for me to sit quietly when you're hurting our children with your policies. Senator, if he doesn't resign, do you think you can still find common ground with Secretary Kennedy? You know, politics is often frustrating because we're failing to do something about the problem. I'm sitting here in Newark, New Jersey, where my residents can easily access highly sugared processed foods and have a hard time accessing quality foods, nutritious foods. We live in a country that subsidizes the big food corporations who are literally poisoning us with the way that they are manufacturing a lot of the foods that they're preparing. And our ag subsidies go to those highly processed foods and not to the foods that we want Americans to eat. And so I'm going to continue to lead on this. Before you heard RFK saying things like that, I was taking steps in Congress to try to help Americans have better access to healthy, nutritious food. And yes, I'll work with anybody that wants to help my community be healthier and better access the foods we need to thrive. But let me tell you right now, the Trump administration is hurting the health of Americans. Our air quality is worse. There are more poisons affecting our families. And health care is being stripped away from tens of millions of Americans. You cannot say that you're about making America healthy again when you are doing so much to hurt people's access to healthy foods, like suspending nutrition programs to health care itself and also making our environment so much less healthy. Senator, another big issue on Capitol Hill, the push to release the files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, some of his survivors speaking out this week at the Capitol. You have Congressman Thomas Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene saying that they will read a list if those survivors put together a list of people who they say were involved in Jeffrey Epstein's circle. Do you think and would you support reading such a list out loud on the House floor, even if it includes names of people who criminally haven't been accused of anything? So let me just say, this is a really, another painful example of Donald Trump looking America in the eye and lying over and over again. He created this crisis. He told the American public that what's going on here has not been fair, transparent, or having any accountability. And now that he's in office, he is not providing transparency, accountability or honesty about what's going on. Thank God there are some Republicans finally getting enough of a backbone to criticize Donald Trump's lies. I hope that continues in other areas vital to Americans' well-being. So I firmly believe that Congress should be taking action in a bipartisan way to create accountability and transparency here. As you heard me discuss with Secretary Besant, we just got that jobs report, lower jobs than expected, created last month. And it comes as Congress is now just over three weeks away from a potential government shutdown. Here's what your colleague, Chris Murphy, says about it. He says, quote, I don't know how Democrats sign on, vote for a budget that doesn't roll back Trump's corruption and his lawlessness. Senator, are you willing to shut down the government to defend Democrats' priorities? I'm willing to fight for Americans. A budget is a moral document. It reflects your priorities. But will you shut down the government, Senator? Will you shut down the government over it? The government, if there's a government shutdown, the Republicans can control the White House and they control Congress. It'll be them that shuts things down. There's one pathway to getting a budget done, that the way it's been done the entire time I've been a United States senator is in a bipartisan manner. But our president does not care about bipartisanship. Our president doesn't care about the independence of agencies he's attacking. He doesn't care about the independence of the Justice Department if he's targeting his political enemies, like my colleague, Adam Schiff. This is a president that does not have the morals necessary to reach across the aisle and work within the bounds of our Constitution. He is reckless and he's hurting Americans. And I'm not giving away my vote for a budget that's going to hurt New Jerseyans or anybody in our nation. All right, Senator, before I let you go, I have to say a very big congratulations to you because you got engaged this week. So on behalf of all of Meet the Press, congratulations, your fiancee not involved in politics. And I wonder, Senator, how have you helped her prepare to step into this political spotlight that you're in? I'm not sure if there's anything to prepare people to be thrust like she has in the public spotlight. We have had a blessing for a long time now to grow our relationship. This is, again, as my mom tells me, perhaps the biggest blessing I've received in my life to meet somebody like her and to have this and share this great commitment. So thank you for that. I'm lucky, pray for us. But I'm so excited and feel so grateful. And thank you to everybody in our country who's just sent us such well wishes and are supporting us as we take this journey. And I just feel so much of a deeper joy than I've ever felt before. All right, Senator Cory Booker, we wish you both all the best and a hearty congratulations again. Thank you so much for joining us on a very big week for you. Really appreciate it. Thank you. When we come back, Steve Kornacki reveals the results of our latest poll on how Americans feel about President Trump. Welcome back to NBC News. Decision Desk is out with a new poll this morning and here to take us inside the numbers is NBC News Chief Data Analyst, the great Steve Kornacki. Thanks for being here, Steve. What do you have? Hey, thanks, Kristin. Good morning. So take a look at our Decision Desk poll. And again, we're looking at all adults here. This is voters and potential voters casting a wide net. We ask about President Trump's job performance, a 43% approval rating. That's what we find in this poll. Of course, that number, that's about the level we've seen Trump at in this second term. And it's about the level we saw Trump at too back during his first term. So it's sort of a bit low historically, but this is very much par for the course as far as President Trump is concerned. On some specific issues, he continues to get his lowest marks right here. This is inflation, the cost of living, just 39% approve of Trump's job performance there. We've seen that throughout his second term as well. He does better when it comes to the border, border security and immigration, 47% job approval. We did something interesting here though, Kristen. We also asked about a different facet of this topic, not just the border, but deportations. When we ask about deportations, it falls a little bit, 43% approval right there. So small, but potentially significant. And we say again, numbers we saw during Trump's first term as well. One of the things we saw in Trump's first term, Republicans had a bad midterm. They lost control of the House in 2018. They're trying to avoid that next year. One of the things they're hoping will be different this time in our poll confirms it continues to be the case right here. The Democratic Party is less popular than the Republican Party. Neither is doing great, but the Democrats more unpopular. We did not see that during Trump's first term. We are seeing that during Trump's second term. And we asked about some other specific areas here. How about vaccine use in the news this week? Florida relaxing that mandate. What do you think about the use of vaccines? You see broad support here though. It is notable in our poll under 50% now identify themselves as strongly supporting the use of vaccines. And we asked about this topic of gerrymandering, the redrawing of congressional districts, partisan advantage. 82% in this survey said they would rather have a nonpartisan commission than the party in power in a state draw the lines. Now, we don't know how deep this sentiment actually is, but one thing worth keeping in mind is this has played out. Republicans just did this in Texas. They didn't need voter approval in Texas. They could just do it in the legislature. California Democrats trying to counter Texas. They're going to need voter approval this November. This is sort of the baseline sentiment that they're up against out there. It doesn't mean the polling looks like this on that topic in California, but this is something to keep an eye on maybe affecting that race. Yes, certainly one of the biggest flashpoints ahead of the midterm. Steve Kornacki, great to see you. Thank you so much. When we come back to the economic warning signs spell political trouble for Republicans in 2026. The panel is next. Welcome back. The panel is here. NBC News White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor. Jonathan Martin, politics bureau chief and senior political columnist for Politico, former Secretary of Homeland Security Jay Johnson and Stephen Hayes, editor and CEO of the Dispatch. Thanks to all of you for being here. Yamiche, let me start with you. Let's start on the economy. You heard my conversation with Secretary Best and he basically tried to argue that, look, the economy is not slowing as these jobs numbers would suggest. Take us inside some of your conversations at the White House. Is there a panic that's starting to set in? What are your sources telling you? Well, I thought it was fascinating that the Treasury Secretary acknowledged that there is some problems here because he said we're going to push through policies that are essentially going to fix this. He also said that manufacturing jobs, they're going to come up and they're going to be there at some point. You heard also the Commerce Secretary before the jobs numbers come out say this was Donald Trump's economy and it's just getting started. And then when the numbers came out, you saw really the president and a number of White House officials that I've been talking to say, well, really, this isn't our fault. This isn't our problem just yet. It's the Fed's problem. It's the Biden administration's problem. So what I'm hearing from White House officials is not panic, but an acknowledgement that this needs to be fixed. And that in some ways is reflected in our poll, right? You saw those numbers for President Trump. He has his weakest ratings on the economy, which is striking given the fact that he was elected on the idea that he was going to cut the cost of living. So the president understands this from my understanding that this is an issue he has to fix and has to fix quickly. But J-Mart, the economy is still the number one issue for voters. Secretary Besant quite insistent that the Supreme Court will uphold the president's tariff policy. He has to be confident. But does this underscore the risks of tariffs being sort of the centerpiece of his entire economic policy? Right, because if that's the case that he owns the recession, because that's going to be blamed on the tariffs almost entirely. And so he will therefore own the recession, which would be brutal going into the midterms. What I'm picking up is increased hope from from GOP officials that the Fed will do a full half point rate cut later this month, because I think that there's a sense that the economy is now wheezing, manufacturing down for three consecutive months, only job gains really in sort of health care and government. So I think that's kind of the wish cast now. Maybe they'll do a full half point cut that that will start juicing the markets. But look, go back now two months, OK? President Trump signs his signature tax legislation. Since that bill signing, Kristen, he has done more on White House renovation and Kennedy center programming that he has to sell that bill. And then the Congress comes back up here this week and the Trump aides go to Capitol Hill and they say, guys, we got a new plan. We're not calling it the one big, beautiful bill anymore. It's going to now be called the Working Families Tax Cut. But why are they calling it the big, beautiful bill in the first place, Kristen? Because it was Trump's idea. I had a senior Hill staffer tell me we had all kinds of dings for it. The Trump folks said, no, it's got to be called BBB. Two months later, that's out and Working Families Tax Cuts. Yeah, well, and it's so fascinating and so much discussion about how to sell the one big, beautiful bill. And Secretary Bess is still calling it that, by the way. Yeah, you know, I thought one part of the exchange that was so interesting, he rejects the idea he would not acknowledge that tariffs are a tax. And to what extent, based on your conversation with Republicans, could that complicate the message heading into the new term? Yeah, well, I think, I mean, look, if you talk to normie Republicans, they will tell you that Scott Besson is really one of the best things about the Trump administration. Inside, he's making strong arguments. He's winning strong arguments. And it's one of the reasons that things haven't gone more off the rails as possible. But you see him give you that answer or that non-answer. Wouldn't even acknowledge that tariffs are taxes. That's not just spin. That's just a basic denial of reality. Of course, tariffs are taxes. It's preposterous for somebody like Scott Besson to pretend otherwise. But when you have somebody like him having to say what he's saying to you, to please Donald Trump, he knows Donald Trump is watching. He's going to be evaluating his performance. And to be able to make those arguments inside, he needs to, you know, peddle that kind of stuff outside. I think it doesn't work. It probably keeps him in the conversation internally. But it, I think, diminishes the credibility of the administration overall, externally. Jay, all of this fits into the broader question of presidential authority, executive authority. We saw that on display this week as well, when the administration struck that ship that they allege was carrying drug smugglers. I asked Senator Cory Booker about it. What do you make of this moment and the implications? I'll give you two answers. The man in the street answer. The United States Coast Guard has as part of its mission drug interdiction on the high seas, supported by the U.S. Navy. Coast Guard identifies drug couriers. They arrest drug couriers. They seize the drugs as evidence. They take the couriers to the nearest federal magistrate and put them in the federal criminal justice system. If our government then says, put all that aside, we're just going to kill them. I think most Americans would and should say, wait a minute. No, we can't do that. This is the United States of America. We are a country of laws. The legal answer is, without a doubt, over multiple administrations, legal interpretations of presidential authority to engage the military in hostile action, lethal force, without congressional authorization, has expanded over time to the point where the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel says, if it's in the national interest to do something like, you know, bomb a chemical weapons facility in Syria or the nuclear facility in Iran or take out terrorist plotters actively trying to kill Americans, but beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement, taking out low-level drug couriers on the high seas crosses, really does cross a line. And, you know, on the broader question, while many in Congress are looking the other way, the courts have really been stepping up to do their job. Over the last nine days, the district court in Boston struck down what Trump's trying to do to Harvard. There's the decision on tariffs and on the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people to Venezuela. So the courts have really stepped up here. And yet, Jaymar, the vice president's doubling down. He posted with an expletive. I don't give a blank if people have questions about exactly what Jay's laying out. Talk about plans to do it. The audience have won, right? No, look, he's trying to be a tough guy, in part for the online audience, in part because that's the ethos of this administration. That's what sells online. But look, I think that this is much like sending the National Guard to big cities. The politics of this are, oh, what, you're against cracking down on crime? Oh, what, you're against going after drug cartels who are bringing fentanyl here to the U.S.? Politically, that's a bad issue for Democrats to litigate. But that's why, as Jay mentioned, this often is going to come down to the federal courts. You're not going to hear a peep from Congress this side of Rand Paul, who's a pure libertarian. Otherwise, you're not going to hear Republicans. And very few Democrats are going to say, actually, this is extrajudicial. This shouldn't have happened because the politics of it are so straightforward. We're taking out bad guys. Yamiche, the crux of this really is this back and forth between the administration and the courts, as Jay and Jaymar were laying out. Yeah, and the president, if you listen to the president, he feels like the courts ultimately are on his side because of this 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, of course, three of them having been nominated by President Trump himself. So if you think about the issue of tariffs, the president sounds so confident about the idea that he's going to win the Supreme Court. But it's also putting the Supreme Court in this position where a body that was already politicized is being even more politicized. And you think about all the other things that are going to be bubbling up. So you think of birthright citizenship and all these other things that people are really worried about. Yeah, Steve? Yeah, I mean, Donald Trump doesn't think rules apply to him. That's been clear in the second term, certainly. But going back to the first term, the courts are trying to say, in effect, some of these rules do apply to you. Jay, final point from you, 30 seconds left. How do you see this playing out and how do you see it playing out ahead of the midterm? Well, when it comes to the Supreme Court, my hope is that some of the justices there decide that their vote is up for grabs. It's not, it shouldn't be just as predictable as 6-3. But as I said, the courts are really stepping up to this. And they may be the ones that actually, at the end of the day, save our democracy. All right. Well, we'll watch and wait to see how it all unfolds. Great conversation. Thank you all very much. Really appreciate it. That is all for today. Thank you so much for watching. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's in the press. Live on our YouTube channel.